About your Search

20110701
20110731
STATION
CSPAN 27
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)
of afghanistan to protect us from terrorist threats. by failing to draw down the number of troops in afghanistan, we continue to focus efforts away from the terrorists and needlessly put american soldiers in the line of fire. but this story is about more than numbers and figures, about it's real people who sacrifice everything to keep us safe. on sunday, april 3, of this year, a 21-year-old young marine named harry lu died while serving the country in afghanistan. he was a son of sandy and allen lu, the sister of carmen lu, and he was my nephew. harry died while serving on watch dudey -- duty in helmand province. his unit's goal was to provide security to locals. but three short months before he was set to return home he was gone. ending this year -- this war will save american lives. ending it will let us focus on fighting terrorism around the demrobe. ending the war will save money -- globe. ending war will save money at a time when we need it most. it is time to end the war in afghanistan, bring our troops home and begin seriously addressing our real security needs. the chair: the gentlelady
in afghanistan and pakistan. not later than 120 days after enactment of this act, the entity described in subsection 8, shall submit to the president and the congress, a report. sense of congress, it is the sense of congress that the entity should be modeled on the iraq study group. section 8127, not more than $200 million may be expended -- the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise. mr. carter: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in the congressional record offered by mr. carter of texas. strike lines 6 through 9 relating to military musical units. the chair: the gentleman from texas is recognized for five minutes. mr. carter: i rise to address an issue i think is very important to the patriotic men and women who fight and defend our country. representative mccollum, in good graces, asked that we restrict the military band funding by $120 million and in an attempt to help with the savings. but the congressional budget office has informed us that this reduction, this $120 million re
.s. military objectives in iraq and afghanistan with the center for strategic international studies and we will talk about the debt ceiling debate and the 2012 campaign with the former chairman of the democratic national committee, tim kaine and fox news andtucker carlson. "washington♪ host: today is wednesday, july 13. we begin by talking about the continuing negotiations regarding the gatt talks happening on capitol hill -- devt talks happening on capitol hill. we will have coverage of that on c-span.org. the first 45 minutes, we want to talk about some of the items in the headlines this morning. "l.a. times," debt talks grow more desperate. senators at merger -- urgent three stage process. it would have a last choice option. for the first 45 minutes, republicans only. we want to get your thoughts on republican leadership handling the debt talks. the numbers are on the screen. if you are in the eastern and central time zone for the first. the second if you are in the mountain and pacific time zones. for the first 45 minutes, just republicans talking about the republican congressional
a week in afghanistan. among the expenditures, our payment for projects that are rebuilding infrastructure in afghanistan, roads, bridges, schools, in some cases hospitals. "the washington post" recently reported that the afghan government is taxing american aid. we send money there to build a road. we have to hire contractors in order to do that. and the afghan government is trying to tax that money for their own coffers. so it's not enough that our taxpayers are spending billions of dollars on projects to rebuild their infrastructure. the afghan government is literally trying to reach in the pocket and double dip and tax our taxpayers for our taxpayers' generosity in giving them money. . how does that make any sense at all? after this was reported, they are stepping up their efforts to grab that cash. they are doing things like threatening to detain contractors. if they don't pay up, take money that's assigned to build that road and put that money in the afghan covers, the afghan officials are threatening to detain our contractors. they are denying licenses to our contract
rodriguez says he doesn't expect violence in afghanistan to start decreasing until next year. from the pentagon earlier today, this is 45 minutes. >> general rodriguez, it's counselor dave lapin at the pentagon. if you're ready to go, i'll introduce you and we'll get started. >> ok, dave, go ahead, thanks. >> thank you. good morning to those here, good evening in afghanistan. i'd like to welcome pack to the pentagon briefing room, army lieutenant general david rodriguez. he's commander of the international security assistance force joint command, also known as i.j.c. and also the deputy commander of the united states forces afghanistan. general rodriguez's current tour began in june, 2009, he became the first commander of the i.j.c. in october of that year. prior to that, general rodriguez was commander of regional command east for 15 months from january, 2007 to april, 2008. next week after two straight years in command and more than 40 months in after gap stan over the past 4 1/2 year, general rodriguez is ski wruled to change command and return stateside to have u.s. army forces
military engagements in iraq, afghanistan, and now libya. i speak of the need also of a new smart security to keep america safe. today will be my 399th speech. i look forward to reaching number 400 next week, and i will continue this until my last day as a member of congress, which gives me approximately 18 months, 1 1/2 years, time to bring our troops safely home. during this week, the week that the house is debating the appropriations, i thought it would be fitting to focus on more spending, on the staggering costs that taxpayers are being asked to bear for our military occupation. $10 billion a month is a lot of money, and that's the price tag for the privilege of continuing to wage a 10-year war against afghanistan. $10 billion a month. the american people who are writing that check have a right to ask and to get answers to some very important questions. where is that money going and what exactly is it accomplishing? what are we getting for our $10 billion a month? are we more secure here at home? is the afghanistan central government introducing the rule of law? have we not already de
and done, iraq and afghanistan will suck the treasury dry to the tune of at least $3.7 trillion. enough already. mr. chairman, the pentagon is like that teenager. you keep giving the kid the keys to the car and he keeps crashing it. it's time we cut him off. we must draw the line and we must draw it here. no more money for libya. no more continuance in libyan hostilities. i urge my colleagues, support this amendment. i yield back. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: the gentleman says we have gone to war in the name of humanity. in other words, the president's war in libya is so that we can preserve humanity in libya. in the history of peoples, as the gentleman from california has pointed out, in the histories of countries, it has always been the king, the dictator, the tyrant, the chief, the leader that has sent that particular country to war. so when our ancestors got together and they formed a new and perfect union, they decided it would not be the leader,
panetta went to iraq and afghanistan. he did not go to pakistan. i take that as a strong message. it is easy when you're in that region to attack on an extra couple of days for an important ally. i think that cross the minds of everyone who planned the trip. it was clearly a conscious decision not to go to pakistan. i think that is in part because when osama bin laden was killed on may 2 there was a list of things that we would ask the pakistan's to do, the pakistani to do, and i have not acted on any of them. this administration also put a hold on a $10 million in assistance. a great way to resolve that is sending the defense secretary to talk to folks about what is going on, but he did not. you are seeing already how differently the pentagon will treat allies in the region. "the in this morning's financial times" they had this headline -- guest: the withdrawal deadline is aggressive. they're talking about getting half of the troops out during the prime fighting season. they do not fight as much during the wintertime. we are starting to withdraw troops during a tumultuous situat
in afghanistan and next director of the c.i.a. certains -- earns a salary of approximately $180,000. the secretary of defense earns about $200,000. how then can we justify salaries of up to $700,000 for defense contractor executives? i understand there may be contractors who supply services to our nation that our government cannot perform on its own. however, i am also absolutely certain there is no one single private contractor whos value to our national security is twice that of the commander in chief of the united states military. at a time when the chairman of the joint chiefs is telling us that the nation's deaf is the number one threat facing america, we cannot continue -- debt is the number one threat facing america, we cannot keep paying private contractor salaries that are more than triple the pay of our military leadership. my amendment simply states that funds in this bill will not be used to pay a federal government salary for any individual defense contractor that exceeds the valerie of the secretary of defense. that sal -- salary of the secretary of defense. that s
and afghanistan, then i would be absolutely against that. host: one more headline and then we will move on to the debt talks. "administration offers health care cuts as part of budget negotiations." this is from "the new york times" on tuesday. guest: what the president is trying to get a very recalcitrant bunch of politicians to come to the table and negotiate. he has tried many ways to get republican colleagues to come to some middle ground and has not succeeded and i suspect he is saying, look, i will put everything on the table and let us see what sticks. i suspect that is what he is doing. otherwise we just save about half a trillion dollars in medicare the next -- years through the historic health reform. how you are going to take more out without really hurting seniors, i don't know. host: steny hoyer, your democratic whip, said he was willing to work with the republicans to reduce the debt. what did that mean to you and how willing are you? guest: i think with -- what mr. steny hoyer is saying is most democrats have put things on the table, some very painful things. and i believ
-- the other factor is that we are now drawing down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of the plan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the war is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trillion. and another thing that's scored in that, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way
, in effect, go dark. paychecks for troops in afghanistan and iraq and based around the world could stop. f.a.a. towers could shut down. could the f.b.i. and the c.i.a., border crossings could close, safety inspections of food americans eat and cargo that enters our ports could halt. literally every function of government could cease. social security checks, payments to our veterans. we've heard that before. there would be no discussion of which operations and personnel were essential. all the payments would very likely stop. some have said we could prioritize which bills to pay. even if that wouldn't irreparably damage our nation's reputation and credit in the global economy and the globe at community, which it would, is also a complete fiction. our government won't even be able to cover the bills due on august 3. it will simply run out of money and because we'll ben default and our credit rating trashed, we'll be able to borrow the money not again to keep running, even if we wanted to. that's a picture secretary geithner painted. like i said, it's grim. many of my republican colleagues un
? well, they say that the savings from winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan don't count. specifically, they say that these savings are -- quote -- "a widely ridiculed accounting gimmick that breeds cynicism." unquote. yet all but three of the 43 senators who signed this letter voted for the ryan budget on may 25 this year. that budget counted the same drawdowns as almost identical in savings. so those savings were legitimate enough to secure their support for the ryan budget but not legitimate enough to secure their support for leader reid's debt ceiling compromise. and here we are on the precipice, and suddenly they've done a 180-degree turn. either these savings count or they don't. you can't have it both ways. so we are proposing exactly what republicans have been saying that they want. yet instead of accepting this deal, they're using what precious time we have left to push forward with their agenda, and it's not even their agenda. it's the tea party agenda. their radical agenda is a wolf in sheep's clothing. last night we voted down speaker boehner's plan which requ
in iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere. what we need to do is have a growth agenda. we need to reprioritize. so instead of subsidizing off-shore jobs, we are subsidizing the growth of manufacturing here in the united states. let me make my second point. this is what the is about. republicans put a bill on the floor that they call cut, cap, and balance. i called it cut, cap, balance, wink, and nod. it absolutely wasn't real. if you just lost your job, because it was out sourced. if you are the c.e.o., you made the million dollars, you get a $100,000 check in the mail tax cut. how is that fair? backbone of the american economy. and the bill on the floor was a kick to the stomach. we need solutions defend middle class than those who provide tax holes for the middle class. host: i want to ask about yesterday what was provided for the public? guest: if you were an auto broker, yeah, it was a good deal. but going into that deal, most was recouped. at the end of the process, yes, over $1 billion, if you are an auto worker, and you are checked your job, and we have a job analysis in the united stat
, afghanistan, and elsewhere. what we need to do is have a growth agenda. we need to reprioritize. so instead of subsidizing off-shore jobs, we are subsidizing the growth of manufacturing here in the united states. let me make my second point. this is what the is about. republicans put a bill on the floor that they call cut, cap, and balance. i called it cut, cap, balance, wink, and nod. it absolutely wasn't real. if you just lost your job, because it was out sourced. if you are the c.e.o., you made the million dollars, you get a $100,000 check in the mail tax cut. how is that fair? backbone of the american economy. and the bill on the floor was a kick to the stomach. we need solutions defend middle class than those who provide tax holes for the middle class. host: i want to ask about yesterday what was provided for the public? guest: if you were an auto broker, yeah, it was a good deal. but going into that deal, most was recouped. at the end of the process, yes, over $1 billion, if you are an auto worker, and you are checked your job, and we have a job analysis in the united states, and we n
trove of documents that have been released in the last year. the iraq war logs, the afghanistan war logs, and what has been called cablegate, as the u.s. state department documents that are continuing to be released. why does it matter so much? we will talk about that this afternoon, but let's just take one example that came out in the iraq war logs. february 2007. the war log show that to give you zero men were standing, iraqis under an apache helicopter. the men have their hands up. they clearly are attempting to surrender. the apache helicopter can see this. so they are not wrote. the soldiers called back to the base and asked what they should do. the lawyer in the bass says you cannot surrender to a helicopter, and they blow the man attempting to surrender away. that was february 2007. now, we will fast forward to july 12, 2007. video that has been released by wikileaks. this devastating video of an area of baghdad where a group of men were showing around two reuters journalists. one was an up-and-coming videographer, and one was this driver. he was 40 years old, father of four. they
down the cost of our military efforts in afghanistan and iraq. last year we spent a little over $150 billion. this year we'll spend a little over $100 billion. and the plan is to soon be down to at least $50 billion in two or three years. so over the ten-year period there'll be about eight years at nearly $50 billion or so spent on the war instead of $150 billion. that's part of thelan that we've been operating on for a long time. $150 billion for the w is not baseline expenditure of the united states. it was never projected to continue at that level, so hopefully we could bring it below $50 billion. maybe we went get to $50 billion. i don't know. but what is the reasonable estimate? i think the house republicans and the president said it would drop to $50 billion, and that would be the baseline out there for the rest of the time. that's $1 trillion. that's $1 trillion. so you take $1 trillion out of the $2.7 trillion, you're down to $1.7 trlion. and another thing that's scored in tt, since that $1 trillion in war costs is scored the way mr. reid scored that, which is phantom money,
dark. paychecks for troops in afghanistan and iraq and based around the world could stop. f.a.a. towers could shut down. so could the f.b.i. and the c.i.a., border crossings could close, safety inspections of food americans eat and cargo that enters our ports could halt. literally every function of governmentould cease. social security checks, payments to our veterans. we've heard that before. there would be no discussion of which operations and personnel were essential. all the payments would very likely stop. some have said we could priorize which bills to pay. even if that wouldn't irreparably damage our nation's reputation and credit in the global economy a the globe at community, which it would, is also a complete fiction. our government won't even be able to cover the bills due on august 3. it will simply run out of money and because we'll be in default and our credit rating trashed, we'll be able to borrow the money not again to keep running, even if we wanted to. that's a picture secretary geithner painted. like i said, it's grim. many of my republican colleagues understand this
. $2.70 trillion in spending cuts, including money saved from ending the war is in iraq and afghanistan. chuck schumer and senator reid spoke about the proposal with reporters for about 25 minutes. >> senators durbin and moynihan are on an airplane. unfortunately, they are not here. but they are on their way. i spent all weekend trying to work something out with republicans. instead of moving forward, we went backwards. one example -- our spending this year for the military is that $700 billion. that is more money for the military than the rest of the country's put together. you would think that in this debate that we have, they could chip in a few bucks to cut some spending. this weekend, the republicans wanted to raise spending. something modest, something the pentagon could live with. over the weekend, lo and behold, more funding for the pentagon. so, rather than trying to work with us on something as obvious as this to save money, they went their own direction. the economy has been forced to have the same debate on the same subject a few months from now. republicans and their short-
of iraq and afghanistan, it would take a serious look out of social security and medicare and in many cases contributing to this deficit. and it would say that those who benefit from ethanol subsidies and oil company tax breaks, the wealthiest people in this country would have to pay a little bit more to pay their fair share. something like that is what should be on the floor here this afternoon because it can pass, the president can sign it and it can solve the fiscal problems of this country or take us in the right direction. but we don't have something like that. instead we have a plan that says the following and puts it in the constitution, the guy who runs an ethanol company who gets massive public subsidies can make profits is completely left alone. he doesn't have to do anything. but for the woman who cleans his office at night is going to have to pay more to go to college, more for health care for herself, her children and her parents and more for just about anything she wants in her life. there's something wrong with that picture. sacrifice that is broadly shared is needed in
on the plan to withdraw 30,000 troops from afghanistan by september, 2012. and after that, dan iannicola of the financial literacy group talks about financial service providers. plus your emails, phone calls and tweets. washington journal, live saturday at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> tune in to c-span this independence day. writer misme lind and other panelists discuss if the united states can remain ninalted. >> at the political level, we're more divided. if you look at partisan polarization than at any point since the civil war in reconstruction. >> then the dalai lama and sister helen prajean talk about religion, violence and the death penalty and nixon white house insiders discuss his presidency's foreign policy. this monday, july 4, beginning at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. for the complete schedule of programs and times go to c-span.org. this fourth of july three-day weekend on american history tv on c-span three. we'll visit the smithsonian museum of natural history to learn about a 19th century u.s. government expedition to circumnavigate the globe and their treasure, 4
is going to count winding down the war in afghanistan as a substantial part of the savings. that could be worth about $1 trillion over 10 years. meanwhile, john boehner is working on his own deficit- reduction debt limit increase plan. he would take -- that plan would be affected in two stages. the first would be $900 trillion or so deficit reduction package, spending cuts, paired with roughly equal amount in debt limit increase. then he would empower a special committee to find an additional $1.60 trillion to authorize or trigger another increase in the debt ceiling. the problem with this proposal, however, it would require raising the debt ceiling by the requisite $2.40 trillion amount into the stages. that is something the president and democratic leaders after yesterday's said is a nonstarter. they say it would create too much uncertainty for the marketplace and the economy if this process had to be replaced at the beginning of next year or summer of next year. >> the house republicans made their own at last it with a cap and balance plan that did not make it to the senate. the pre
. somalia, chad, sudan, congo, haiti. zimbabwe, afghanistan, central african republic and iraq. guest: 2z no accident some of those countries have ended up at the worst end of the index. if you look at somalia, it is a country experiencing next, what does that mean for the wider world. we see there is enormous refugee flows. we've seen in the last couple of decades where there have been significant concerns here in washington about the ability of terrorists to operate due to the lack of governing. that is really why we should care that these states are there and should really take notice. for anyone who is at all familiar with international affairs, it doesn't take the fail-safe influence. if you see some of those other countries on the list, it's important to do those as well. if it weren't for bringing 240ez issues forward, the public is experiencing serious trouble. the countries are experiencing serious trouble. that's one of the key aspects. we are talking about the 2011 fail-state influence. here to talk with us is discussions. to get involved in the discussion call 202-624-1111 for
the paper work, without a court order. while they were in iraq or afghanistan, they were the victim families. this is an area we want to look into. host: and their relation to david petraeus? guest: she is married to him. host: maria, a republican. you are on. caller: my husband and i both watch c-span regularly, and we are concerned about this agency created with a half of a $1 billion budget. our question is how much duplication is taking place? he mentioned a few minutes ago that hundreds of people have already been hired. could you let us know the duplication of these consumer protection services that this new agency is supposed to do, and how, and what is going to happen to these other employees within the federal government? guest: well, that is a very good question. consumer protection used to be in various different agencies. the fed had consumer, occ -- all of these different agencies. consumer protection was often a secondary thought, a third thought, or not even thought about at all. that is why regulators did not in any way most to curb the abuses in the sub-prime lending, which
-- the international computer underground." but with the iraq war logs, the afghanistan war laws, and the u.s. cables that have yet to be fully release, i would say that julian assange is perhaps the most widely published purpose on earth. -- person on earth. today will have a conversation about information and i would like to ask julianne to begin -- julian to begin by going back to that moment in 2007, and talk about the significance of those for you and why you have chosen to release this information. >> amy, on that criteria, perhaps rupert murdoch's goal most widely published person on earth, and people have said that australia has given two people to the world, rupert murdoch and me. begin publishing. [laughter] in some ways, things are very easy for us and for me. we make a promise to sources that if they give us material of a certain type of significance, of diplomatic, historic, or ethical significance, and they are under a certain threat, we will publish it. that is actually and up. we have a goal with publishing material. it has been my long-term believe that what advances of civilization
about fraud in afghanistan, iraq, pakistan, and now the congress wants us, after giving away our jobs, not fair trade, free trade agreements -- now they want to go back and give them away with korea. i cannot believe the direction that this country has gone in. we keep talking about corporate tax rates. that is the key word. "rate." they are not paying 35%. they are paying 4%, 6%, 9%, and i am making up the difference. the irs is after a relative of mine who lost their job. they owe them $5,000. karzei and his brother have walked off with billions of dollars and our congress cannot seem to stop it. guest: well, there is a lot there. obviously, a lot of these countries, and it is very disappointing to see fraud and hopefully over time it will go down, i do not want to make any excuses for it because there are no excuses for that activity. a lot of these countries do not have the same developed a rule of law that we have over here. even in our country, there have been instances of fraud and bribery and things like that. there were huge problems in its new jersey and in the past. in illi
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)